Reliable renewables exist off-planet. Can they be 'harvested'?

Could solar and wind be made reliable, always-on, power sources? An evaluation of all energy supply options should include answering this question.

Australia's in a growing energy reliability and cost of living mess. Attempting rushed renewables is already a growing cost of living disaster. More's to come.

'Harvested' on Earth, solar and wind are intermittent, weather-dependent, 'unreliables'. More reliability, via extra generation, battery storage, and new transmission lines, is very expensive.

Many reject ground-based nuclear power as a low-emissions, 24/7, option. That leaves gas, diesel, and coal as available base-load and 'peaker' power options. All are much-needed now.

Ironically, as a big gas exporter, we'll soon import gas to offset expected power supply shortfalls. Discouraging or banning more locally-produced gas contributes to this situation.

How could 'renewables' like solar and wind powerbe made 24/7 'reliables'? Think off-planet. That's where these 'renewables' ultimately come from.

If usable solar and wind power is sourced from 'harvesters' located sufficiently far off-planet, it might be 24/7. No day or night. No terrestrial weather. No seasons. Always 'on'.

The Sun is a huge, long-lived, dispatchable power battery. We just have to find the best way to plug into it. Its past life was essential for the emergence all life on Earth. It's about middle-aged now. Its future life extends way beyond future Earth-based human existence.

It's now a source of inexhaustible, more-or-less steady, solar radiation and solar wind power. This reflects nuclear fusion, from hydrogen to helium variants, in the Sun's massive gravity core.

Could this really be 'harvested' off-planet, transmitted to Earth, and distributed to end-users? In principle, yes. In practice, doing so probably would be very expensive. We should find out.

The catch is the same problem – cost – bedevilling unreliable Earth-based solar and wind. It would probably be even more expensive, and more insecure, than Earth-based 'unreliables'.

Why?

First, the solar 'harvesting' equipment (solar panels and such) must be in orbit around Earth at a suitable distance. In a geo-stationary orbit, or at one of our two stable la grange points? Earth 'eclipses' of 'harvesters' direct sight line to the Sun must be eliminated in the chosen orbits. How many such 'harvesters' would Earth need? At least three to cover the entire globe? More?

How could solar wind be captured? Tricky. Don't think solar wind sails cut it. Let's find out.

Second, 'harvested' power from off-planet must be beamed to Earth to suitable locations. How?

Third, ground transmission and distribution wires must deliver beamed power to end-users. Hopefully many of these already exist.

Off-planet gear probably will be hugely expensive and require global cooperation to put in place.

Cooperation? Will countries regard such power sources as nationally secure? Energy security is already a major and growing issue. How much more so for off-planet power?

There's been 'cooperation', of sorts, around emissions reduction promises since the Rio Earth Summit, 1992. But not in delivery. Global emissions continue to grow. Prospects for global cooperation about off-planet solar and wind energy 'harvesting' seem even less likely now.

There is a low-emissions alternative.

Earth-based nuclear power can be located wherever nations choose. Fission technology already exists, is relatively safe, and still improving. It can use existing transmission and distribution infrastructure (FCAS comes in-built). It's long-lasting (80+ years), unlike solar panels, wind turbines and manufactured batteries. It doesn't require power 'extension cords' (inter-connectors) between states or countries. It's a durable, low-emissions, 24/7, alternative to more reliance on Earth-based 'unreliables'.

Look at French nuclear power history. French neighbours also depend on French nuclear power. Because they haven't any.

Why should a 1998 policy banning low-emissions nuclear power in Australia (Lucas Heights aside) be used as a reason to oppose it over a quarter of a century later? Things change.

Apples-vs-apples, why can't its costs independently be compared with all alternatives?

Why can't its roll-out time be objectively assessed against 'unreliables' roll-out times?

Nuclear power is widely used. Australia supplies uranium to users. Why can't we use it too?